Megrahi to be released

[midnightexpress]

I admit that I don't know enough about the ins and outs of this case to say whether he did it or not (though it does look suspiciously like there has been a cover-up of at least some of the facts in the case). And I have no idea what my reaction to this news would be if I were a relative of one of the victims.

However, what is interesting is how there is really nothing very edifying in seeing the vengeful 'he should rot in hell' comments from some quarters. The guy whose daughter was killed who says that Megrahi should be allowed to go home to die seems so much more worthy of admiration, somehow.

What do other people think?

Obviously it's a Scottish matter, but I sort of changed my mind when it was reported that Megrahi's wife and children lived in Glasgow, and were able to visit frequently and prisoners, from what I understand, have visiting restrictions waived when in the last stages of terminal illness.

So, his release is looking more and more political.

Oh no, Obama. WE can't be on the same side of political debate. It will ruin my reputation on MN.

Should have been left to rot. Far too much emphasis on the human rights of these murdering cowards

AtheneNoctua, it would surely be seen by the relatives of the 290 innocents who died in the Iranian airliner as the height of insenstivity to give a hero's welcome to the crew who made such a grave and catastrophic mistake?

ilovemydog, being able to visit your terminally ill husband in prison is not the same as having him at home with you, surely.

Before Megrahi, 30 prisoners had applied for compassionate release since the legislation was implemented to allow it. 23 of them were granted. The 7 that were not granted failed because the medical evidence did not support it. Given that the legislation apparently does not allow for account to be taken of the nature or gravity of the crime, exactly what grounds would Kenny MacAskill have had for refusing a competent application under this legislation (competent in the sense that the medical evidence stated that Megrahi is terminally ill and is expected to die within 3 months). As far as I can see, refusing the application would have required MacAskill to make a political, not a quasi-judicial, decision. That would have been wrong.

Megrahi could not have received adequate care in his last stages in prison (and to suggest that he should not have received proper care would, of course, be beneath contempt) and caring for him elsewhere would have had a massive impact on other people being cared for at the same location because of the security requirements.

If we are going to be better than "murdering cowards", we are required to behave better than they do. Showing compassion to one who, if guilty, showed none to his victims is a way that we do this.

Besides, there is doubt in some quarters as to the safety of Megrahi's original conviction - and this is not solely the preserve of crackpot conspiracy theorists. Among those who doubt Megrahi's guilt are Jim Swire, father of a 24 year old daughter who died at Lockerbie, and Professor Robert Black, a legal academic who was instrumental in setting up the Scottish Court in the Netherlands where Megrahi was tried. Black has written extensively and eloquently on the subject. Read his blog.

AtheneNoctua, it would surely be seen by the relatives of the 290 innocents who died in the Iranian airliner as the height of insenstivity to give a hero's welcome to the crew who made such a grave and catastrophic mistake?

ilovemydog, being able to visit your terminally ill husband in prison is not the same as having him at home with you, surely.

Before Megrahi, 30 prisoners had applied for compassionate release since the legislation was implemented to allow it. 23 of them were granted. The 7 that were not granted failed because the medical evidence did not support it. Given that the legislation apparently does not allow for account to be taken of the nature or gravity of the crime, exactly what grounds would Kenny MacAskill have had for refusing a competent application under this legislation (competent in the sense that the medical evidence stated that Megrahi is terminally ill and is expected to die within 3 months). As far as I can see, refusing the application would have required MacAskill to make a political, not a quasi-judicial, decision. That would have been wrong.

Megrahi could not have received adequate care in his last stages in prison (and to suggest that he should not have received proper care would, of course, be beneath contempt) and caring for him elsewhere would have had a massive impact on other people being cared for at the same location because of the security requirements.

If we are going to be better than "murdering cowards", we are required to behave better than they do. Showing compassion to one who, if guilty, showed none to his victims is a way that we do this.

Besides, there is doubt in some quarters as to the safety of Megrahi's original conviction - and this is not solely the preserve of crackpot conspiracy theorists. Among those who doubt Megrahi's guilt are Jim Swire, father of a 24 year old daughter who died at Lockerbie, and Professor Robert Black, a legal academic who was instrumental in setting up the Scottish Court in the Netherlands where Megrahi was tried. Black has written extensively and eloquently on the subject. Read his blog.

(that was my first ever double post!

I'm curious (and quite bothered by it actually) as to where the Libyans got the saltires from that they were waving when the mass murderer released prisoner arrived in Libya?
I still think it was the wrong call to make

Yes, MsHighwater, I take your point. Mine was the difference between "because of" and "in spite of". However, I know nothing of this alleged heroes welcome so can't really comment on whether or not it really happened. Was it the same welcome that a navy ship returning to an American Port always gets? In the US, we still tend to support our armed services.

In the UK, on the whole, we support our armed services, too. The opposition that has been building recently to what is happening in Afghanistan recently has to do with people's dismay that so many of them are being killed for an exploit the point of which many of us fail to see.

I also don't think the Iranian relatives would appreciate the difference between "because of" and "in spite of". In part, my point was that the feelings of the relatives of people who die in newsworthy circumstances, while they should not be ignored, cannot be used as the basis of decisions by a system that is meant to be fair and impartial. I have sympathy for anyone bereaved by the Lockerbie bombing. I don't expect any of them to be objective about it, though. But objectivity is exactly what was required of MacAskill and what I think he showed last week.

Absolutely excellent post MsHighwater.

I'm proud ot be Scottish, and proud that my legal system doesn't behave as badly as a convicted criminal.

Compassion isn't a one way street. It's only worth the paper it's written on if is unconditional.

That's why some US states have the death penalty and we never will. I'm glad we're us and not them.

For those who are interested in the safety of Meghrabis? conviction, I watched a newsnight special on the evidence at the time of the conviction. I was genuinely shocked that a man could be convicted on such flaky evidence. In summary, the evidence was the following:

After the bombing, forensic scientists gathered all the fragments from the airplane. They identified clothing which was especially charred. They grouped together fragments of especially charred clothing and considered that this clothing was likely to have been in the bomb suitcase.

One of the items of clothing believed to be in the bomb suitcase was linked with Malta. I can?t remember exactly why.

The detectives then visited various clothing shops in Malta. In one shop which appeared to sell all or most of the clothing considered to be in the bomb suitcase, the shopkeeper remembered a strange customer six months previously who bought most of those items. This shopkeeper picked out Mr Meghrabi in an identity parade.

Now it is possible that the Maltese shopkeeper may be correct, but identifying a customer who came into a shop for 15 minutes, from an identity parade six months later does not appear to be a sound basis for a conviction.

You missed a couple of points: that the shopkeeper saw (was shown?) a photograph of Megrahi a couple of days before the identity line-up and that he was paid $2 million for his testimony

Good post MrsHighwater.

As someone who has had a relative die of cancer very recently, I found it a bit upsetting that Kenny MacAskill equated Megrahi's cancer to justice from a higher power. Apart from that I thought his speech was very eloquent.

trixymalixy, I think you are not alone in that. However, when I thought about it, I decided that Kenny MacAskill's reference to the judgement of a higher power might be taken to refer not to the fact that Megrahi is going to die (after all, we are all going to die) but to the judgement he will face afterwards (from the Christian viewpoint, at least).

From the Christian perspective, God knows whether or not Megrahi committed the crime and, if he did, he will face the final judgement for it, but his cancer is not in itself the judgement.

MrsHighwater, great post. You said what I've been saying, but much more eloquantly.

Thought some on here might be interested in this correspondence between a relative of mine and a friend of his in Pakistan:

"We are in the throes of an interesting debate in Scotland regarding the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber. A common view amongst Scots is that it was correct to release the man on compassionate grounds. It has been convenient for the U.K Government to pass the buck to Scotland to avoid loosing trade deals - hardly a principled stand. We find the American view on the release somewhat insulting; their attitude seems to conceive only revenge and retribution - strange for a country which professes a religious morality. Besides, many believe the conviction was unsafe - the questions relating to evidence given after huge payments, the attribution of guilt to one man when it patently was a government sponsored act (and the supposed guilty country is now being brought back into the fold as oil becomes important) and the failure to follow a possible link to the earlier American shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane lead to a widely held view that a full public enquiry is needed. But that may embarrass the secret services of some of the major players. "

This was the response from his Pakistani friend:

"Thank you for your mail.I feel the Americans lack the historical great traditions of people from the old world and in that sense they can't compete with the traditional intellect of Scottish people or for that matter with people having the background of centuries old civilisations.They remain behind some of the great games leading to human suffering worldwide.We are still far away from the global utopia of humans living in peace irrespective of their colour, creed,ethnicity,language or geographical borders."